"Have the students write the name JESUS in big letters on a piece of paper," the lesson reads. "Ask the students to stand up and put the paper on the floor in front of them with the name facing up. Ask the students to think about it for a moment. After a brief period of silence instruct them to step on the paper. Most will hesitate. Ask why they can't step on the paper. Discuss the importance of symbols in culture."

Ryan Rotela, a devout Mormon, was in the classroom and refused to participate - telling television station WPEC that the assignment was insulting and offensive."He had us all stand up and he said 'Stomp on it,'" Rotela said. "I picked up the paper from the floor and put it right back on the table. I'm not going to be sitting in a class having my religious rights desecrated."

"Ask the students to stand up and put the paper on the floor in front of them with the name facing up. Ask the students to think about it for a moment. After a brief period of silence instruct them to step on the paper. Most will hesitate. Ask why they can't step on the paper. Discuss the importance of symbols in culture."

Sounds like the students were not "forced" to step on the paper at all. The point of the exercise was to get the students to think about why they didn't want to step on the paper. Sounds like a potentially interesting exercise, but conducted in a ham-handed way.

Happy Hours:The university did not explain why students were only instructed to write the name of Jesus - and not the name of Mohammed or another religious figure.

Oh, that's easy. They would be the target of terrorist attacks and called "racist" if they had told the students to write Mohammed.

Also, "Mohammed" is harder to spell than Jesus and most of the student would probably have been unable to do so.

Muslim students would hesitate before stepping on the name of Jesus, because they consider him one of the great prophets. Many American Christian students would not hesitate to step on the name of Mohammed, so they would not have learned the lesson that the exercise was intended to teach.

My religious sensibilities were offended when I got a TownHall pop-up ad advertising a book titled "Obama's Four Horsemen." Equating out president to Satan is far more offensive than anything that could have happened on some campus at a college in Florida.

I think I could see how being asked to write the name of your divine spirit on a piece of paper and then being required to step on it might be offensive. I'm not sure who designed this particular exercise, but it kind of sucks ass. There are much better ways IMHO to teach how hypocritical and ridiculous many religious teachings are without doing dishonor to the essential message behind them which is essentially love and tolerance. Jesus was a great man in many respects and even as an atheist, I'm not sure I would want to write out his name and then stomp on it.

"This exercise is a bit sensitive, but really drives home the point that even though symbols are arbitrary, they take on very strong and emotional meanings," says the manual, which predicts most students will hesitate to step on the paper. The manual says the instructor should ask students why they can't step on the paper and "discuss the importance of symbols in culture."Rotela said Poole brushed him off when he tried to object to doing the exercise.After the class, Rotela said, he expressed his concerns to Poole and said he would tell Poole's supervisor and the media about the incident. He said Poole told him to leave the classroom.

I think that lesson could have been taught without the actual exercise of stepping on a piece of paper. I'm not even religious and I would have had a problem with it because I respect other people's faith. Not everyone in the class was a devout Christian (I'm just guessing, but I think that's a safe bet). They could have used an American flag as well.

To quote one of my favorite movies "It's a test designed to provoke an emotional response". Emotion is not intellect. It is not learning. There are hundreds of ways to demonstrate that symbols are very powerful things without targeting the students religions - or patriotism - and asking them to denigrate either.

Happy Hours:FloydA: Happy Hours: The university did not explain why students were only instructed to write the name of Jesus - and not the name of Mohammed or another religious figure.

Oh, that's easy. They would be the target of terrorist attacks and called "racist" if they had told the students to write Mohammed.

Also, "Mohammed" is harder to spell than Jesus and most of the student would probably have been unable to do so.

Muslim students would hesitate before stepping on the name of Jesus, because they consider him one of the great prophets. Many American Christian students would not hesitate to step on the name of Mohammed, so they would not have learned the lesson that the exercise was intended to teach.

Which was what exactly?

The article fails to mention that and in the interest of getting a more objective view I've read a CBS article about this which also failed to explain what lesson it was trying to teach.

What was the lesson?

Is it that students will stomp on the name of a religious figure they believe in if an authority figure tells them to?

Is it that Jesus represents a religion that has had many things done in its name that were unjust?

Is it something completely different?

Do you even know what lesson was trying to be taught?

FTFA:"Have the students write the name JESUS in big letters on a piece of paper," the lesson reads. "Ask the students to stand up and put the paper on the floor in front of them with the name facing up. Ask the students to think about it for a moment. After a brief period of silence instruct them to step on the paper. Most will hesitate. Ask why they can't step on the paper. Discuss the importance of symbols in culture."

Sounds like the kid did exactly what was expected and rather than understand the point he decided to cry "help, Christians are being oppressed." When the teacher's supervisor failed to share in the outrage the kid cried all the way to Fox News.

I suppose it's possible that the teacher messed up the lesson and rather than accepting the kid's refusal and using it, he tried to force the kid to do it. Considering where this is popping up, I'm guessing it's just butthurt about "oppressing Christians" but I have a friend that teaches down there and I'll ask her if there's anything more to it.

Sounds like the students were not "forced" to step on the paper at all. The point of the exercise was to get the students to think about why they didn't want to step on the paper. Sounds like a potentially interesting exercise, but conducted in a ham-handed way.

Arthur Jumbles: Of course, I don't understand why a student was punished for refusing to step on the paper, which seems to be the point of the exercise.

I have not seen any evidence that the student was "punished" for refusing to step on the paper. In fact, according to the description, that is the expected response, and I suspect that most of the class also refused. I haven't seen any indication that the student was "punished" at all, TBH. Just that he didn't understand the lesson and threw a tantrum about what he mistakenly imagined was happening.

Happy Hours:FloydA: Happy Hours: The university did not explain why students were only instructed to write the name of Jesus - and not the name of Mohammed or another religious figure.

Oh, that's easy. They would be the target of terrorist attacks and called "racist" if they had told the students to write Mohammed.

Also, "Mohammed" is harder to spell than Jesus and most of the student would probably have been unable to do so.

Muslim students would hesitate before stepping on the name of Jesus, because they consider him one of the great prophets. Many American Christian students would not hesitate to step on the name of Mohammed, so they would not have learned the lesson that the exercise was intended to teach.

Which was what exactly?

The article fails to mention that and in the interest of getting a more objective view I've read a CBS article about this which also failed to explain what lesson it was trying to teach.

What was the lesson?

Is it that students will stomp on the name of a religious figure they believe in if an authority figure tells them to?

Is it that Jesus represents a religion that has had many things done in its name that were unjust?

Is it something completely different?

Do you even know what lesson was trying to be taught?

The article made it pretty obvious:

"Ask the students to stand up and put the paper on the floor in front of them with the name facing up. Ask the students to think about it for a moment. After a brief period of silence instruct them to step on the paper. Most will hesitate. Ask why they can't step on the paper. Discuss the importance of symbols in culture."The bold text here indicates the lesson that the students were supposed to learn. The lesson was that people will hesitate before doing something that might seem disrespectful to the name of Jesus. Then the follow up, after they don't step on the paper, is the important part of the lesson - the students are then asked to think about why they don't want to step on it. Symbols are important, and even though the thing on the floor is really just ink on paper, it means something significant to the students.

Think about it, for a minute. If the paper had "Hitler" written on it, nobody would hesitate to wipe their feet on it, because we are pretty much in agreement that Hitler was a horrible person and earned our disrespect. If the paper had the word "doormat" written on it, nobody would hesitate to step on it. The lesson involves understanding what makes symbols important to our behavior, and names are a type of symbol.

raerae1980:ginandbacon: I think I could see how being asked to write the name of your divine spirit on a piece of paper and then being required to step on it might be offensive. I'm not sure who designed this particular exercise, but it kind of sucks ass. There are much better ways IMHO to teach how hypocritical and ridiculous many religious teachings are without doing dishonor to the essential message behind them which is essentially love and tolerance. Jesus was a great man in many respects and even as an atheist, I'm not sure I would want to write out his name and then stomp on it.

Id have no problem stomping on it. Im an atheist and I have doubts on if he even existed.

Well good for you? I wouldn't do it. Not with Jesus' name, Mohammed's, the Buddha's, or Shiva's. The sacred isn't meant to be a literal interpretation. It's meant to be something we invest with significance. It's meant to reflect our best instincts and should be cared for.

So any student that doesn't want to stomp on the paper is asked to think about why - an exercise that leads to more introspection and a collegiate level of discussion of important symbols in a culture. Hell, push the envelope if that's the case. Put a cross, a star of david, an crescent moon, a yinyang, a swastika (the peace kind AND the Nazi kind), and an American flag on different pieces of paper and ask the students to stomp on and rip up whichever ones they think are appropriate.

Nowhere in the derpfest article is there any mention of tying one's grade to stomping on the paper (ie "If you don't do this, you will fail the class"), which WOULD be a violation of religious expression.

FloydA:Happy Hours: The university did not explain why students were only instructed to write the name of Jesus - and not the name of Mohammed or another religious figure.

Oh, that's easy. They would be the target of terrorist attacks and called "racist" if they had told the students to write Mohammed.

Also, "Mohammed" is harder to spell than Jesus and most of the student would probably have been unable to do so.

Muslim students would hesitate before stepping on the name of Jesus, because they consider him one of the great prophets. Many American Christian students would not hesitate to step on the name of Mohammed, so they would not have learned the lesson that the exercise was intended to teach.

Which was what exactly?

The article fails to mention that and in the interest of getting a more objective view I've read a CBS article about this which also failed to explain what lesson it was trying to teach.

What was the lesson?

Is it that students will stomp on the name of a religious figure they believe in if an authority figure tells them to?

Is it that Jesus represents a religion that has had many things done in its name that were unjust?

FTA:Ryan Rotela, a devout Mormon, was in the classroom and refused to participate - telling television station WPEC that the assignment was insulting and offensive."He had us all stand up and he said 'Stomp on it,'" Rotela said. "I picked up the paper from the floor and put it right back on the table. I'm not going to be sitting in a class having my religious rights desecrated."

You know... that piece of paper probably got thrown away. It's sitting in a trash heap right now.

SkinnyHead:The exercise is pointless for those students who have no reverence for Jesus. Those students should be forced to say a prayer to Jesus instead. Then they could benefit from the exercise too.

oddly enough, I'm ok with that. it would be in line with the lesson the professor was trying to teach.

Happy Hours:To quote one of my favorite movies "It's a test designed to provoke an emotional response". Emotion is not intellect. It is not learning. There are hundreds of ways to demonstrate that symbols are very powerful things without targeting the students religions - or patriotism - and asking them to denigrate either.

But if you REALLY want to get someone's attention, then jump starting their emotions is a good way to go about doing it. the tricky part is calming them down and getting them back to talking about things in a rational manner. it's a valid approach and it can work...but it's not easy to pull off.

ginandbacon:I think I could see how being asked to write the name of your divine spirit on a piece of paper and then being required to step on it might be offensive. I'm not sure who designed this particular exercise, but it kind of sucks ass. There are much better ways IMHO to teach how hypocritical and ridiculous many religious teachings are without doing dishonor to the essential message behind them which is essentially love and tolerance. Jesus was a great man in many respects and even as an atheist, I'm not sure I would want to write out his name and then stomp on it.

Id have no problem stomping on it. Im an atheist and I have doubts on if he even existed.

The exercise seems fine to me. Stomp or don't stomp it's just a prop to get the discussion going. Now the university contradicts the student's claim that he was suspended. I'm thinking that Jesus boy was lying about that one. Universities don't suspend students for piddly little things like not participating or making a valid complaint.

ginandbacon:I think I could see how being asked to write the name of your divine spirit on a piece of paper and then being required to step on it might be offensive. I'm not sure who designed this particular exercise, but it kind of sucks ass. There are much better ways IMHO to teach how hypocritical and ridiculous many religious teachings are without doing dishonor to the essential message behind them which is essentially love and tolerance. Jesus was a great man in many respects and even as an atheist, I'm not sure I would want to write out his name and then stomp on it.

Nobody was required to step on the paper. In fact, the lesson specifically contemplates that students will refuse to step on the paper. The ensuing discussion focuses on why.

Notably absent from the article, in fact, is any mention of whether or not any students actually did choose to step on the paper. Given that this is a right-wing ZOMG WER BEAN PERSECOOTED propaganda piece, it is more probable than not that nobody did. The author would surely focus on such a fact in order to generate more outrage.

Happy Hours:"This exercise is a bit sensitive, but really drives home the point that even though symbols are arbitrary, they take on very strong and emotional meanings," says the manual, which predicts most students will hesitate to step on the paper. The manual says the instructor should ask students why they can't step on the paper and "discuss the importance of symbols in culture."Rotela said Poole brushed him off when he tried to object to doing the exercise.After the class, Rotela said, he expressed his concerns to Poole and said he would tell Poole's supervisor and the media about the incident. He said Poole told him to leave the classroom.

I think that lesson could have been taught without the actual exercise of stepping on a piece of paper. I'm not even religious and I would have had a problem with it because I respect other people's faith. Not everyone in the class was a devout Christian (I'm just guessing, but I think that's a safe bet). They could have used an American flag as well.

I don't see anything that said they had to step on the paper. Regardless of whether they stepped on the paper, the same discussion could be had. "Hey, whiny media whore, you couldn't bring yourself to step on the paper. Why is that?" And "hey, you, why did you step on it without hesitation?" What is the difference here, regarding understanding and meanings of symbols? And then all of you who hesitated, but did it anyway? What changed your minds?

It could have been an interesting conversation, but the religious nutter decided to make a big case out of it because it made him uncomfortable. Though it seems that the entire point was discussing and dissecting said discomfort. Maybe he should go to a seminary (or whatever Mormons do) rather than a building of education.

one of the things that struck me about Limbaugh's ranting on this story was how desperate he seemed to make it into a big deal. Its like he NEEDED this to be a massive conspiracy and/or assault on the whole of Christianity. to me it sounded like an attempt by a professor to get students out of their comfort zones and looking at the world from a different perspective. that is difficult to do, and some delicate snowflakes aren't going to like it very much. my read on this college course was that the professor could have done a better job explaining his motives after the fact...but also that the student who complained is/was a delicate flower looking to be offended in the first place.

s2s2s2:Keizer_Ghidorah: How was it rude and pointless and a power trip? It was a discussion about symbols and how we react to them.

In this case, it wasn't "religious symbols", it was the name of one, in particular, that any professor worth a damn would know is a hot button for MANY people in this country. He can claim a general reason all he wants, but he chose a specific name. Why wasn't the exercise to write the name of the thing most important to each individual student and have them step on it?

A: Because THIS exercise was a specific question about christian symbols.

Gee, maybe that's why he picked it, because Christianity is such a big deal in America. Would you guys have been this angry and hateful and whiny if he had used Jews, or Muslims, or Buddhists, or the Dali Llama, or the San Francisco 49ers, or Nintendo, or America's Next Top Model? And he wasn't doing it to make some kind of atheist statement, or to ridicule Christianity, or anything your conspiracy theorist retard minds might think of.

It's like you people are going out of your way to see is as only some kind of anti-Christian liberal atheist attack.

Bit'O'Gristle:TerminalEchoes: ginandbacon: I think I could see how being asked to write the name of your divine spirit on a piece of paper and then being required to step on it might be offensive. I'm not sure who designed this particular exercise, but it kind of sucks ass. There are much better ways IMHO to teach how hypocritical and ridiculous many religious teachings are without doing dishonor to the essential message behind them which is essentially love and tolerance. Jesus was a great man in many respects and even as an atheist, I'm not sure I would want to write out his name and then stomp on it.

/You do realize, you just said you're an atheist, and that jesus was a great man in the same sentence dont you?//bangs head on desk.

What part of believing that Jesus was a great man is irreconcilable with being an atheist?

FloydA:Think about it, for a minute. If the paper had "Hitler" written on it, nobody would hesitate to wipe their feet on it, because we are pretty much in agreement that Hitler was a horrible person and earned our disrespect. If the paper had the word "doormat" written on it, nobody would hesitate to step on it. The lesson involves understanding what makes symbols important to our behavior, and names are a type of symbol.

What would have made it even more interesting, as an experiment if nothing else, would have been if the instructor had written the word "Mohammed" on one side and "Jesus" on the other. Place them "Mohammed" side up before letting the little darlings in and then let the stomping commence. Then have the students flip the paper over and ask those who are offended by realizing they had also stomped Jesus why it is OK peachy fine great fun to stomp Mohammed, but not Jesus, as Mohammed is just as important a name/symbol to somewheres about a billion people as Jesus is to them and about another billion people.

I honestly do not think that would really make too many of them think too terribly hard or stop any impending whining, but as an admirer of the oft-maligned Sly One, it would amuse me greatly.

Russ1642:The exercise seems fine to me. Stomp or don't stomp it's just a prop to get the discussion going. Now the university contradicts the student's claim that he was suspended. I'm thinking that Jesus boy was lying about that one. Universities don't suspend students for piddly little things like not participating or making a valid complaint.

1) As I've pointed out upthread, many of the criticisms of the lesson are bullsh*t. Nobody was forced to do anything. In fact, the excerpted portion of the lesson specifically contemplates that students will refuse to step on the paper. The discussion is about why.

2) That being said, it's not clear to me the lesson is "fine." The idea of it isn't bad in principle; i.e., demonstrating expression of cultural values through actions or inaction. What troubles me, though, is that inevitably some students will choose to step on the paper, an act which is reasonably perceived as disrespectful to Christian beliefs. While there are appropriate venues for that kind of expression, one of those venues is not a university classroom at the instigation of the professor.

3) The student, the author, or the editor almost certainly lied about the student being suspended for reporting the incident.

It's called a lesson in empathy. Be told to do something that violates your values.

Now you understand what it's like when you are told to violate others.

It is a university. That means your religious values are to be put on a shelf when you enter the classroom so you can learn things that go beyond what you feel comfortable with. Classes are meant to push you beyond your comfort zone. If that doesn't happen, you do not grow. This isn't elementary school where you are coddled and parents make sure everyone "feels good." If you hold strong religious convictions, social sciences are often going to be a hostile environment because most religious beliefs are built around "What I believe is utter truth and what you believe is hogwash" even though more progressive groups don't get in your face about it. Social sciences are about removing that part from yourself, which the highly religious simply find offensive.

Anyone who describes themselves as "devout" anything should try to avoid most social sciences classes.

bugontherug:Weaver95: SkinnyHead: The exercise is pointless for those students who have no reverence for Jesus. Those students should be forced to say a prayer to Jesus instead. Then they could benefit from the exercise too.

oddly enough, I'm ok with that. it would be in line with the lesson the professor was trying to teach.

Except that nobody was required to step on the paper. And TrollHead's premise is false anyway. The exercise is certainly instructive even for students with no reverence for Jesus. Let's assume one fact, and infer another:

1) Let's assume there was at least one student present with no reverence for Jesus. I would say infer this, but the article doesn't mention how many students were present. But it's reasonable to assume that in any normal sized class at a secular university there's at least one non-Christian.

2) Let's infer from the article's failure to report whether anyone actually did step on the paper that no one did. It is a strong inference given that the article's sole purpose is to generate outrage. Had any students stepped on the paper, the article would have emphasized that point to make people madder.

Given those two facts, it is certainly instructive to that student that s/he chose not to step on the paper. It is likewise instructive for other students who do revere Jesus to learn why those who don't revere Jesus chose not to step on it.

the lesson was ill-advised. Could have achieved the same lesson with having each student write his or her mother's name and discuss why they were hesitant to stomp on a paper with words on it to explore the importance of symbols.

You love this lesson precisely because it was ill-advised and bothered someone whose offense you take pleasure in.Fortunately, such an attitude isn't necessary to make the same point.

rkiller1:eraser8: Is there a reason our society treats religious ideas so much more gingerly than other kinds of ideas?This isn't a troll. I'm seriously asking.

Not really. It's a cause de jure, as are LGBT rights, abortion, gun control, racism and Washington politics. Wait a few weeks and other de jure issue will cycle through MSNBC. Wait a few years and we'll be right back here. You know, circle of life and all./Whatever sells, sells.

Note: "De Jure" is a Latin term that means "concerning the law." "Du Jour" is a French phrase means "of the day" or "made for a particular time."

CheetahOlivetti:So Townhall blows, but it was a stupid assignment. I wouldn't stomp on a piece of paper with my child's name on it either. Too bad the derpers will use this as an example of Christian oppression.

Weaver95:SkinnyHead: The exercise is pointless for those students who have no reverence for Jesus. Those students should be forced to say a prayer to Jesus instead. Then they could benefit from the exercise too.

oddly enough, I'm ok with that. it would be in line with the lesson the professor was trying to teach.

Except that's not going to happen, because atheists would sue the professor's ass off and win.

Well, it was the source Fark linked to. They didn't link to a different source. As far as going to a different news outlet to read this story, no thanks. It's an unimportant story.

Maybe it's an unimportant story, but I will not hesitate to look for other sources of news if I don't like the linked source on Fark. I do the same when local TV stations try to tease me to stay tuned for their news. For example I might be watching the Simpsons on a Sunday night and the local Fox station will do a promo telling me "How the grass on your front lawn may be killing your children! Tune in to the news to find out!". And so I'll do a quick search and find out that a local university found bacteria in dog shiat or something. Is that really news? Of course not, but how your front lawn may be killing your children is a compelling and scary promo, isn't it? And before you go all anti-Fox because that's what channel the Simpson's are on, the local ABC, CBS and NBC affiliate pull the same shiat.

Beowoolfie:Keizer_Ghidorah: It was his fault that a retarded Christian kid completely misunderstood the point of an exercise and took it to the media in order to get attention?

That's my opinion, yes. It was a stupidly-presented exercise that even an intelligent kid could easily misunderstand. And it doesn't matter at all to me that it was "Jesus". I'd feel the same if he'd instructed them to spit on pictures of their mothers.

I see the point he was trying to make. Certainly cultural context matters. But there were plenty of ways to demonstrate that point without asking a student to commit something they saw as a heinous act. This was in the same category as the stories we've seen where a teacher wanted to reenact a slave auction, and segregated the children by race to do so.

Decent idea, but terrible implementation. He should have started smaller, maybe stomping an American flag himself then inviting discussion about why that angered them. What he did forced religion into the workplace, which is just as wrong for an atheist as for an evangelical.

He didn't force them to step on it. In fact, NOT stepping on it was the farking point. The power of symbols was the reason for the lesson, and the instructor used one of the most widespread and known symbols in American culture. And the way you, this kid, and the other idiots in the thread are reacting proves the instructor's point extremely well.

There was NOTHING bad, wrong, evil, attacking Christianity, or whatever about this. All you idiots are doing is throwing pissy fits because you THINK someone was making a personal attack on yours or others beliefs. And yes, you said you're an atheist, I know, you're still getting outraged for the sake of those who aren't because they know this isn't something to be outraged about.

News flash: universities discuss things like religion. And you might be VERY surprised to hear this, but that doesn't mean they're forcing it upon their students or holding up one religion over others. For someone who claims to know why the instructor did it and how justified the student was to threaten the man and run whining to the media, you really don't seem to know anything.

Beowoolfie:James F. Campbell: Beowoolfie: professors who screw up this badly

I question not only your reading comprehension but your liberal credentials. I think, in fact, that you are full of shiat in addition to being an idiot. But please, explain to us how the professor "screwed up."

What I meant by screwing up was he publicly embarrassed his university.

Questioning things is good for you. I hope you keep it up. :)

It was his fault that a retarded Christian kid completely misunderstood the point of an exercise and took it to the media in order to get attention?

FloydA:Igor Jakovsky: If the professor had stones he would have had the students draw Mohammed after the stomp on Jesus exercise.

So you didn't understand the point of the exercise either?

I did. The point of the exercise was for the teacher to show off how much more "progressive" and "edgy". he was than everybody else. What if it were a "gender relations" or "sexual identity" class? Would the teacher have been in the right to require everybody to give everybody else in the class a hummer--round robin style--regardless of any individual student's sexual preferences--oh, excuse me, I am in the wrong to bring that up. To be analogous, the professor would have had to have required same-sex only hummers regardless of individual student preferences.

Same issue: Professor wants students to do something "edgy", "transgressive", and "symbolic" that goes against the grain of majority culture. So, for "educational" purposes, should students all be required to do such a thing?

Ahvren:The point of the exercise was to show how culturalicons can have power. Not personal icons. If the students were allowed to write what mattered most to them, it wouldn't have nearly the impact. One of the points of the lesson was to show that Jesus is so pervasive in our culture that even students who don't recognize him religiously would hesitate before stepping on the paper.

Exactly. I could write the most important people/things in my life on a piece of paper - , my mom's (who passed away) name, my boyfried's name, my cats' names, my band's name. My own name, even. Why would anyone who isn't me (or related to my boyfriend or me) have any issue stomping on a piece of paper that said "Jason"? As personally important to me all of the above are, they are not pervasive influences or icons in our culture. That is why they chose "Jesus." Even atheists recognize who Jesus is. Christians worship him. Jews acknowledge and wait for his return. Muslims consider him a Prophet. Agnostics certainly feel something. And even many atheists will say "there is nothing wrong with the general message of Jesus."

I don't understand how people can't see the point of this illustration and how interesting and valuable the ensuing discussion should be, beyond someone throwing a hissy fit of epic proportions that this exercise was even proposed. (Am I still correct that nobody was forced to step on the paper? I'd love to know how religious beliefs were violated here....)

"...we can confirm that no student has been expelled, suspended or disciplined by the University as a result of any activity that took place during this class.

This exercise will not be used again. The University holds dear its core values. We sincerely apologize for any offense this caused. Florida Atlantic University respects all religions and welcomes people of all faiths, backgrounds and beliefs."

Too bad they didn't stand strong against stupidity. Something like "The University holds dear to its core values, including academic integrity. We will not second-guess one of our professors simply because one student lacked the cognitive or temperamental capacity to understand a lesson."

Damnhippyfreak:I agree that shock and a bit of disruption of existing ideas is certainly useful but we have to be careful about reactions to said shock. It has to be balanced with a recognition that different students will react differently to it, and therefore a soft touch or safety net is prudent, if not necessary. As an example, if it was me running this course, I would have performed it as a thought exercise to take a bit of the edge off and immediately followed up with an open discussion to let the students express what they were feeling (the latter works wonders in my experience in preventing them from stewing in it).

Which is exactly how the lesson was done in the first place. The kid still decided to turn it into a media circus.

ginandbacon:Keizer_Ghidorah: Still trying to understand why you think the teacher was "behaving immorally", considering he didn't force anyone to do anything and had the students discuss why they did and didn't step on a piece of paper with a name on it.

I think that the teacher's decision to make this particular exercise about Jesus was uncalled for and weird. It seemed like (from the teaching material) that it should have been a more general lesson. And would have had greater value if students had to confront defiling their own deity vs. the deity of others. That would have brought the point home in a concrete way, do you not agree?

Not really, because the POINT OF THE GODDAMNED LESSON WAS SYMBOLS AND THEIR POWER IN OUR CULTURE, NOT CHRISTIANITY VS THE REST OF RELIGION. AND SINCE CHRISTIANITY IS THE MAJOR RELIGION OF AMERICA, IT MAKES PERFECT SENSE TO USE IT AS THE FOCUS.

ginandbacon:I think I could see how being asked to write the name of your divine spirit on a piece of paper and then being required to step on it might be offensive. I'm not sure who designed this particular exercise, but it kind of sucks ass. There are much better ways IMHO to teach how hypocritical and ridiculous many religious teachings are without doing dishonor to the essential message behind them which is essentially love and tolerance. Jesus was a great man in many respects and even as an atheist, I'm not sure I would want to write out his name and then stomp on it.

They were not required to. The exercise assumes that most will not comply and their reasons are supposed to form the basis of class discussion. The guy complaining is a dick.

Can you not see how asking a student to write out the name of the religious symbol they identify as a personal savior and then telling them to defile that might be a bit demeaning?

It's just crass and really unnecessary. There are plenty of other ways to introduce students to the idea that religious symbolism can be a tad overwrought. I would be really upset if one of my Christian friends was exposed to this in a classroom.

It's not helpful.

HE DIDN'T TELL THEM TO DEFILE IT AND ONLY DEFILE IT, DIPshiat. HE WASN'T MAD ABOUT THE STUDENTS WHO DIDN'T STEP ON IT. IT WAS A DISCUSSION OF THE POWER SYMBOLS HAVE IN OUR CULTURE. THE STUDENT'S NOT STEPPING ON IT IS NOT THE FARKING PROBLEM, IT WAS THE STUDENT'S OVERBLOWN AND ATTENTION-WHORING REACTION.

ginandbacon:Keizer_Ghidorah: It really is amazing how many people in this thread either mistakenly or deliberately misinterpret what the professor did and see it as some kind of liberal atheist assault on Christians.

It was rude and pointless. I have no respect for teachers who belittle their students like that. It's a power trip and doesn't deserve praise.

How was it rude and pointless and a power trip? It was a discussion about symbols and how we react to them. If you honestly think it was anything else, especially some kind of evil vicious attack, then you're the one with the problem, just like the kid.

Bit'O'Gristle:Look at history, all the wars over "my god is more badass than yours"

No, YOU look at history.

Back in the day, the Christians were raiding the Muslim held Jerusalem to "free the holy land" you say. Do you have any idea how wars were conducted back then? Knights would gather their loyal men, band together with weapons of war, and then go somewhere. When they got there they would sack it and take anything they wanted; treasure, food, women. Along the way there and back they would forage. Foraging in today's nomenclature would be called robbery.

Now let's look at Vikings raiding English monasteries. They didn't do it to show Odin is better than Jesus. They did it because monks had a lot of wealth, made good slaves, and had no weapons of their own. Again, greed.

Perhaps we can look at Muslim insurgents. Dissatisfied minorities trying to gain power. Just like every other insurgent group. Yeah, they want Muslim law, but the FARC wants FARC law and the Klan wants Klan law. Everyone wants to be top ramen.

Atheism isn't some magical cure for human nature. Religion's been used to justify all kinds of things, but it's not the only justification. The Iraq War, a modern crusade, was totally secular. Removing religion will just bring in some other bullshiat and put funny hat makers out of business.

Bit'O'Gristle:/You can't be serious. Look at history, all the wars over "my god is more badass than yours" or "you are a pagan and must die because my God told me so" wars. Not to mention the wars going on now, where people of the SAME FAITH kill one another just because their beliefs are slightly different.

The excuses given for "I am going to war with you because I want your shiat"(You know, the actual cause of wars) are immaterial. We would have wars with or without religion.

The professor is a coward, and chose the safest figure to "desecrate". Christianity is the goto target for hate by the hard left academia. If he really wanted to choose a brave target, he would have chosen Mohammed or some other revered figure like Martin Luther King Jr. Of course, he knows that he would be murdered or fired for that, so he chose a safe target like Jesus.

SkinnyHead:Mrtraveler01: SkinnyHead: Moquary: Sounds like the exercise was designed to demonstrate in a real way that the sacred has special meaning to us and most people wouldn't step on the paper. So the exercise really is designed so that people do not step on the paper. Not to force students to be disrespectful.

If that was the point of the exercise, then this student should have got an A and everyone should be praising him for refusing to stomp on something he held sacred.

It's ok not to participate. It's not ok to biatch and whine to the local media about how the professor was mean to you and your delicate sensibilities.

Conservatives always whine about people being Politically Correctly until it favors them.

The exercise assumed that some students would refuse to step on the paper. According to the article, the professor is supposed to "Ask why they can't step on the paper. Discuss the importance of symbols in culture." This student told the professor why he refused to step on the paper. That means that he was participating in the exercise in exactly the way it was intended. The professor should have told him that his anger was justified and that the point of the exercise was to evoke anger to dramatize the importance of symbols in culture.

Given that was the explicit purpose of the exercise, this line of explanation was most likely what was presented during the class. Why the student took away a different message is a good question.

Gabrielmot:FloydA: "Ask the students to stand up and put the paper on the floor in front of them with the name facing up. Ask the students to think about it for a moment. After a brief period of silence instruct them to step on the paper. Most will hesitate. Ask why they can't step on the paper. Discuss the importance of symbols in culture."

Sounds like the students were not "forced" to step on the paper at all. The point of the exercise was to get the students to think about why they didn't want to step on the paper. Sounds like a potentially interesting exercise, but conducted in a ham-handed way.

So, they were not "forced"? Which is interesting really... It almost reminds me of an issue called "prayer in school". Where no one was required to pray, but a group of individuals got so butt hurt they decided that it was *too much* for others to be allowed that freedom, and they should silence themselves when praying to a God they didn't believe in.

I wonder what group that was?

I wonder how up in arms you'd be if the requirement was to write "atheist" and stomp on that paper?

ginandbacon had it right. Whether or not you agree with someone's religious beliefs (or lack there of), you should respect them (as long as they aren't directly harming anyone).

As a Baptist, I'd say the atheists who don't get this, and rant and rave over prayer in school and talk about the "man on a stick" and who on a daily basis mock Christians are equivalent to the Westboro Baptist Church morons.

Atheists like that make reasonable people like ginandbacon look bad. There are smart, thoughtful and intelligent atheists which while I disagree with, I can respect and hold a reasonable argument with. The majority in this thread are in my mind equivalent to the Westboro Baptist Church idiots.

-Not worthy of attention.

You mean how the people in authority in schools aren't allowed to lead prayers because that violates separation of church and state as it would be putting one religion over the rest? Yeah, that's just so horrible and stomping on you poor Christians. You'd also throw a hissy fit if other religions had their prayers led by those in authority in schools, so this solution is best for everyone.

For a group that dominates the religious culture in America, Christians sure do whine loud and long about how oppressed and attacked they are when they're not allowed to extend their domination to non-religious areas.

raerae1980:ginandbacon: I think I could see how being asked to write the name of your divine spirit on a piece of paper and then being required to step on it might be offensive. I'm not sure who designed this particular exercise, but it kind of sucks ass. There are much better ways IMHO to teach how hypocritical and ridiculous many religious teachings are without doing dishonor to the essential message behind them which is essentially love and tolerance. Jesus was a great man in many respects and even as an atheist, I'm not sure I would want to write out his name and then stomp on it.

Id have no problem stomping on it. Im an atheist and I have doubts on if he even existed.

I was raised Catholic, I'm probably closer to agnostic at this point, but I respect other's rights to believe in what ever they want to. In the US, we have that luxury. Do I think that someone like Jesus lived at one time? Probably. A very nice guy, who helped whoever he could, told great stories to make people understand what he was trying to put across, and helped to resolve conflicts. Was he punished for doing these things? Knowing what we do now, I think someone was. Virgin birth and resurrection? Highly doubtful.

All major religions boil down to one major tenant. Be nice to each other. That's it. The stories and fables and songs and all that other stuff just comes down to that. And I'm OK with that, but people get caught up in the minutia of specific words used to try to illustrate a point of "Be nice to each other" that's been translated over a couple of millenia into whatever local language is needed.

While I am not into your religion, unless you are affecting my life, you go right on ahead. I'll do my best not to step on your signs out of respect for you as a human.

All dwarfed by the murdering sprees of those arguing that no sky wizard exists.

/See: Stalin//Or Mao///Etc, etc, etc

What you and those like you fail to realize or conveniently ignore is that Stalin, Mao, Hitler, etc did NOT conduct what they did in the name of atheism, Darwin, natural selection, evolution, etc. They did not commit atrocities because they were told by the Legged Fish to wipe out the infidels. They did not oppress and rule with iron fists because they honored the spirit of the great Charles Darwin. They did what they did because they were assholes who craved power, control, and to eliminate those they say as enemies or undesirables. So, as you can see, that comparison falls flat.

SkinnyHead:Moquary: Sounds like the exercise was designed to demonstrate in a real way that the sacred has special meaning to us and most people wouldn't step on the paper. So the exercise really is designed so that people do not step on the paper. Not to force students to be disrespectful.

If that was the point of the exercise, then this student should have got an A and everyone should be praising him for refusing to stomp on something he held sacred.

It's ok not to participate. It's not ok to biatch and whine to the local media about how the professor was mean to you and your delicate sensibilities.

Conservatives always whine about people being Politically Correctly until it favors them.

Weaver95:one of the things that struck me about Limbaugh's ranting on this story was how desperate he seemed to make it into a big deal. Its like he NEEDED this to be a massive conspiracy and/or assault on the whole of Christianity. to me it sounded like an attempt by a professor to get students out of their comfort zones and looking at the world from a different perspective. that is difficult to do, and some delicate snowflakes aren't going to like it very much. my read on this college course was that the professor could have done a better job explaining his motives after the fact...but also that the student who complained is/was a delicate flower looking to be offended in the first place.

This is Rush Limbaugh we're talking about. He's a con artist rebel rouser disguised as an "entertainer" who proclaims that no one should take him seriously as he implores people to declare war on the government and everyone who isn't Republican. Hatred, discord, misinformation, and lies are his food and drink. The man spend several months slandering and attacking a woman speaking about her lesbian friend's ovarian cysts that nearly killed her because her college refused to allow her the birth control medicine that kept them in check as a super-prostitute demanding tax money to buy condoms for her slutty lifestyle. He doesn't have any class or tact, if it's something he can turn into a weapon against those he views as enemies then he'll happily turn it into a weapon and start swinging indiscriminately.

eraser8:Is there a reason our society treats religious ideas so much more gingerly than other kinds of ideas?

This isn't a troll. I'm seriously asking.

Because it makes people really, really uncomfortable. Imagine someone came up to you and pushed a button that briefly revealed to you that your entire existence has been a hologram, and none of the people in your life, none of the physical laws of the universe, and nothing that happened to you is real. When presented with damning evidence that everything you've believed up until now is a lie, most people can't handle it. They would rather spend their energy kicking and screaming and hiding from it so that they can continue with their life like they always have. They've invested so much in this life that they can't bear to not see a return on it. So they will deny, deny, deny, and don't you DARE show them anything that might remind them of reality. Because reality hurts. A lot. And people just want you to be gentle with them and not subject them to it.

I suppose the exercise could also have been done about as effectively with asking students to set small paper United States flags on fire.However, the conservatives would probably be even more outraged, and the fire marshal might not be keep on college students playing with matches indoors.

Probably just the opposite. The Bible warns about idolatry and the worship of graven images. He should have stomped that piece of paper good to prove his faith.

I've always liked that Christians pray every week to a God who condemned them for false idols while being surrounded by false idols.

Being surrounded by them is one thing, worshiping them is another. Most Christians do not worship false idols. The only ones I know of that actually DO are Catholics. Of course i've seen unsaved Catholics before so being Catholic doesn't necessarily mean they are Christian.

Saying that you take the Lord Jesus Christ as your personal savior isn't going to get you into heaven either.

I find it so damn funny that the same group of people acting like this is nothing to get worked up over turned one guy burning a Koran in to an international incident with their incessant whining and crying about it. If the students had been asked to this to a piece of paper with the name "Mohammed" on it there would be a screaming, sign waving crowd of protesters outside the school and the internet would light up with furious "Islamophobia" articles.

But hey, it's just Jesus on the paper, so get over it and the student is getting upset over nothing.

Karac:Happy Hours: After the class, Rotela said, he expressed his concerns to Poole and said he would tell Poole's supervisor and the media about the incident. He said Poole told him to leave the classroom.

So after class let out, the professor kicked him out of the room?Anyone care to bet whether the kid was standing there throwing a shiatfit and the professor just asked him to step outside so he could lock up and go home already?

"Expressed his concerns" is code for "threw a tantrum." "Said he would tell his supervisor and the media" is a kid saying, "Imma call the news and you're gonna get fired!"

Professor's response; "go home kid, try to understand what you just proved."

TheDumbBlonde:The real outrage is that someone is paying per credit hour for the bullshiat.

'Bullshiat', of course, is the word most of us would use to define a really important lesson on culture and symbols, a lesson I actually would love to see happen in my Anthro class (I seem to be the only one who really grasps that American culture is just that, a culture, not The Way The World Works(tm), and I'm willing to bet that's just my Assburger's working).

/Seriously, I really hate it when people go whine about 'bullshiat' that actually serves a purpose. Yes, your boss is having you do those trust exercises for a reason. No, you are not a special snowflake that can get out of it by trying to look cool and edgy and pretending it's not 'real' enough for you.

This reminds me of the story where a professor was trying to get a classroom full of students at one of the big Texas schools to think about why voting is important. So he started posing questions about why vote if your vote hasn't ever made a difference. Has any election you've ever participated in ever been decided by a single vote where your participation or decision made any impact? Rather than taking the lesson and thinking about the symbolic and other purposes of voting, one student stormed out and called a conservative talk show to complain that liberals were trying to convince them not to vote.

I have no problem with this lesson, whether it was Jesus, another prophet, the American flag (or another flag) or a picture of the POTUS... or any past president, that the students were asked to in some way disrespect. Learning facts and tables is useless and will be forgotten. Learning different ways to think about or consider a problem or situation is a life-long skill. Developing that can be uncomfortable.

FloydA:Happy Hours: FloydA: Happy Hours: The university did not explain why students were only instructed to write the name of Jesus - and not the name of Mohammed or another religious figure.

Oh, that's easy. They would be the target of terrorist attacks and called "racist" if they had told the students to write Mohammed.

Also, "Mohammed" is harder to spell than Jesus and most of the student would probably have been unable to do so.

Muslim students would hesitate before stepping on the name of Jesus, because they consider him one of the great prophets. Many American Christian students would not hesitate to step on the name of Mohammed, so they would not have learned the lesson that the exercise was intended to teach.

Which was what exactly?

The article fails to mention that and in the interest of getting a more objective view I've read a CBS article about this which also failed to explain what lesson it was trying to teach.

What was the lesson?

Is it that students will stomp on the name of a religious figure they believe in if an authority figure tells them to?

Is it that Jesus represents a religion that has had many things done in its name that were unjust?

Is it something completely different?

Do you even know what lesson was trying to be taught?

The article made it pretty obvious:

"Ask the students to stand up and put the paper on the floor in front of them with the name facing up. Ask the students to think about it for a moment. After a brief period of silence instruct them to step on the paper. Most will hesitate. Ask why they can't step on the paper. Discuss the importance of symbols in culture."The bold text here indicates the lesson that the students were supposed to learn. The lesson was that people will hesitate before doing something that might seem disrespectful to the name of Jesus. Then the follow up, after they don't step on the paper, is the important part of the lesson - the students are then asked to think about why they don't want to ...

Snarcoleptic_Hoosier:So any student that doesn't want to stomp on the paper is asked to think about why - an exercise that leads to more introspection and a collegiate level of discussion of important symbols in a culture. Hell, push the envelope if that's the case. Put a cross, a star of david, an crescent moon, a yinyang, a swastika (the peace kind AND the Nazi kind), and an American flag on different pieces of paper and ask the students to stomp on and rip up whichever ones they think are appropriate.

Nowhere in the derpfest article is there any mention of tying one's grade to stomping on the paper (ie "If you don't do this, you will fail the class"), which WOULD be a violation of religious expression.

But what do I know, I'm a liberal and enjoy context.

These.

Somewhat off topic, somewhat related:

Years ago I took a cultural anthropology course which ended up being one of the neatest courses I ever ended up taking. Due to the fact that so many people would get wound up about it, the professor made a note in the syllabus and stated the first day that she would refer to all religions as mythologies, don't be offended.

There were a few Christian students who did end up taking offense throughout the semester and tried to argue the validity of Christianity over what some Siberian/jungle/etc. tribe believed, and a few dropped the class.

I wonder how many drop, then pull out the persecution complex and complain, as the guy in the article seems to be doing.

The school can't go into details because of student privacy, but stated that nobody was punished for not participating in this assignment. I'll bet this little jackass complained, and when the administration blew him off or tried to explain the context of the exercise, he threw a little tantrum and THAT is what he was suspended for.

If critical thinking is difficult for you, college may not be the right choice. Try a technical school or go be a carpenter like Jesus.

johnperkins:ginandbacon: I think I could see how being asked to write the name of your divine spirit on a piece of paper and then being required to step on it might be offensive. I'm not sure who designed this particular exercise, but it kind of sucks ass. There are much better ways IMHO to teach how hypocritical and ridiculous many religious teachings are without doing dishonor to the essential message behind them which is essentially love and tolerance. Jesus was a great man in many respects and even as an atheist, I'm not sure I would want to write out his name and then stomp on it.

It might have been more interesting if the professor gave a presentation about a made-up* religion and asked everyone to write the name of the made-up prophet on the paper, then step on it.

* 'made up' as in the professor made it up for the lesson, not an existing religion someone could argue was made up.

That doesn't work. That's like playing poker with monopoly money. You need to have the real thing or you don't feel and act the same. Like imagining looking over a cliff and actually looking over one. Big difference.

The point is no ONE religious figure should have been singled out. Should have been told to write the name of "whatever figure is important to your faith." Otherwise the "experiment" is worthless. Only teaches anything to people to whom Jesus has meaning.

Are you assuming that all of the atheists in the class would step on the paper? Because that's not an assumption I'm willing to make. I would hesitate (and I'm about as athy as they get), not because I believe in Jesus, but because I "believe in" politeness, and I would not want to offend my classmates. Therefore, the symbol has meaning to me even though I am not a member of that, or any other, religion.

I suspect that you may not have understood what the exercise was intended to teach.

FloydA:"Ask the students to stand up and put the paper on the floor in front of them with the name facing up. Ask the students to think about it for a moment. After a brief period of silence instruct them to step on the paper. Most will hesitate. Ask why they can't step on the paper. Discuss the importance of symbols in culture."

Sounds like the students were not "forced" to step on the paper at all. The point of the exercise was to get the students to think about why they didn't want to step on the paper. Sounds like a potentially interesting exercise, but conducted in a ham-handed way.

So, they were not "forced"? Which is interesting really... It almost reminds me of an issue called "prayer in school". Where no one was required to pray, but a group of individuals got so butt hurt they decided that it was *too much* for others to be allowed that freedom, and they should silence themselves when praying to a God they didn't believe in.

I wonder what group that was?

I wonder how up in arms you'd be if the requirement was to write "atheist" and stomp on that paper?

ginandbacon had it right. Whether or not you agree with someone's religious beliefs (or lack there of), you should respect them (as long as they aren't directly harming anyone).

As a Baptist, I'd say the atheists who don't get this, and rant and rave over prayer in school and talk about the "man on a stick" and who on a daily basis mock Christians are equivalent to the Westboro Baptist Church morons.

Atheists like that make reasonable people like ginandbacon look bad. There are smart, thoughtful and intelligent atheists which while I disagree with, I can respect and hold a reasonable argument with. The majority in this thread are in my mind equivalent to the Westboro Baptist Church idiots.

Somacandra:eraser8: Is there a reason our society treats religious ideas so much more gingerly than other kinds of ideas?

Complex historical reasons. A lot of it is tied up into what gets to count in a historically Protestant public square as "legitimate religion" in legal terms and what gets counted instead as "Popery" (Catholicism), "Paganism"(Amerindian traditions), or "Cults" (Mormons). There is a vast literature on it. Good case in point would be the Mormon tradition.

I think it also has to do with the centrality of religious ideas or lack thereof to personal identity.

This exercise just goes to show that not only are religious people completely irrational about their beliefs but when it's pointed out to them they get all "I'm being persecuted" and shiat. When you can no longer even talk about your beliefs, why you do or do not think and act a certain way, then the brainwashing of the church was successful.

Weaver95:SkinnyHead: The exercise is pointless for those students who have no reverence for Jesus. Those students should be forced to say a prayer to Jesus instead. Then they could benefit from the exercise too.

oddly enough, I'm ok with that. it would be in line with the lesson the professor was trying to teach.

Except that nobody was required to step on the paper. And TrollHead's premise is false anyway. The exercise is certainly instructive even for students with no reverence for Jesus. Let's assume one fact, and infer another:

1) Let's assume there was at least one student present with no reverence for Jesus. I would say infer this, but the article doesn't mention how many students were present. But it's reasonable to assume that in any normal sized class at a secular university there's at least one non-Christian.

2) Let's infer from the article's failure to report whether anyone actually did step on the paper that no one did. It is a strong inference given that the article's sole purpose is to generate outrage. Had any students stepped on the paper, the article would have emphasized that point to make people madder.

Given those two facts, it is certainly instructive to that student that s/he chose not to step on the paper. It is likewise instructive for other students who do revere Jesus to learn why those who don't revere Jesus chose not to step on it.

mekki:SkinnyHead: The exercise is pointless for those students who have no reverence for Jesus. Those students should be forced to say a prayer to Jesus instead. Then they could benefit from the exercise too.

True. It would have made more sense to use the American flag since there is a better chance the students would be American. And for many, you would have a similar outcome.

There's more discussion to be had when everybody in the class does not look up to the symbol in question, like say an atheist student who decides not to step on the paper.

Plus it's probably cheaper and quicker to have each student write JESUS on a piece of paper then it is to draw or print out hundreds of copies of an American flag.

Weaver95:Happy Hours:To quote one of my favorite movies "It's a test designed to provoke an emotional response". Emotion is not intellect. It is not learning. There are hundreds of ways to demonstrate that symbols are very powerful things without targeting the students religions - or patriotism - and asking them to denigrate either.

But if you REALLY want to get someone's attention, then jump starting their emotions is a good way to go about doing it. the tricky part is calming them down and getting them back to talking about things in a rational manner. it's a valid approach and it can work...but it's not easy to pull off.

Remember the spider that lived outside your window? Orange body, green legs. Watched her build a web all summer, then one day there's a big egg in it. The egg hatched...

Happy Hours:FloydA: Happy Hours: The university did not explain why students were only instructed to write the name of Jesus - and not the name of Mohammed or another religious figure.

Oh, that's easy. They would be the target of terrorist attacks and called "racist" if they had told the students to write Mohammed.

Also, "Mohammed" is harder to spell than Jesus and most of the student would probably have been unable to do so.

Muslim students would hesitate before stepping on the name of Jesus, because they consider him one of the great prophets. Many American Christian students would not hesitate to step on the name of Mohammed, so they would not have learned the lesson that the exercise was intended to teach.

Which was what exactly?

The article fails to mention that and in the interest of getting a more objective view I've read a CBS article about this which also failed to explain what lesson it was trying to teach.

What was the lesson?

Is it that students will stomp on the name of a religious figure they believe in if an authority figure tells them to?

Is it that Jesus represents a religion that has had many things done in its name that were unjust?

SkinnyHead:The exercise is pointless for those students who have no reverence for Jesus. Those students should be forced to say a prayer to Jesus instead. Then they could benefit from the exercise too.

True. It would have made more sense to use the American flag since there is a better chance the students would be American. And for many, you would have a similar outcome.

CheetahOlivetti:So Townhall blows, but it was a stupid assignment. I wouldn't stomp on a piece of paper with my child's name on it either. Too bad the derpers will use this as an example of Christian oppression.

But would you be able to explain why you wouldn't step on your child's name? Because that part was the point of the assignment, you know...

eraser8:Is there a reason our society treats religious ideas so much more gingerly than other kinds of ideas?This isn't a troll. I'm seriously asking.

Not really. It's a cause de jure, as are LGBT rights, abortion, gun control, racism and Washington politics. Wait a few weeks and other de jure issue will cycle through MSNBC. Wait a few years and we'll be right back here. You know, circle of life and all./Whatever sells, sells.

raerae1980:ginandbacon: I think I could see how being asked to write the name of your divine spirit on a piece of paper and then being required to step on it might be offensive. I'm not sure who designed this particular exercise, but it kind of sucks ass. There are much better ways IMHO to teach how hypocritical and ridiculous many religious teachings are without doing dishonor to the essential message behind them which is essentially love and tolerance. Jesus was a great man in many respects and even as an atheist, I'm not sure I would want to write out his name and then stomp on it.

Id have no problem stomping on it. Im an atheist and I have doubts on if he even existed.

Weaver95:SkinnyHead: The exercise is pointless for those students who have no reverence for Jesus. Those students should be forced to say a prayer to Jesus instead. Then they could benefit from the exercise too.

oddly enough, I'm ok with that. it would be in line with the lesson the professor was trying to teach.

and Id be one of those students. Its not difficult to recite a prayer. I still remember The 'Our Father'.

Happy Hours:Maybe it's an unimportant story, but I will not hesitate to look for other sources of news if I don't like the linked source on Fark. I do the same when local TV stations try to tease me to stay tuned for their news. For example I might be watching the Simpsons on a Sunday night and the local Fox station will do a promo telling me "How the grass on your front lawn may be killing your children! Tune in to the news to find out!". And so I'll do a quick search and find out that a local university found bacteria in dog shiat or something. Is that really news? Of course not, but how your front lawn may be killing your children is a compelling and scary promo, isn't it? And before you go all anti-Fox because that's what channel the Simpson's are on, the local ABC, CBS and NBC affiliate pull the same shiat.

FloydA:Arthur Jumbles: Of course, I don't understand why a student was punished for refusing to step on the paper, which seems to be the point of the exercise.

I have not seen any evidence that the student was "punished" for refusing to step on the paper. In fact, according to the description, that is the expected response, and I suspect that most of the class also refused. I haven't seen any indication that the student was "punished" at all, TBH. Just that he didn't understand the lesson and threw a tantrum about what he mistakenly imagined was happening.

St_Francis_P:"Have the students write the name JESUS in big letters on a piece of paper," the lesson reads. "Ask the students to stand up and put the paper on the floor in front of them with the name facing up. Ask the students to think about it for a moment. After a brief period of silence instruct them to step on the paper. Most will hesitate. Ask why they can't step on the paper. Discuss the importance of symbols in culture."

Ryan Rotela, a devout Mormon, was in the classroom and refused to participate - telling television station WPEC that the assignment was insulting and offensive."He had us all stand up and he said 'Stomp on it,'" Rotela said. "I picked up the paper from the floor and put it right back on the table. I'm not going to be sitting in a class having my religious rights desecrated."

Which illustrates the professor's point nicely, I'd say.

It's a good lesson for the objective..... it nicely shows to students that symbols have power to influence human behavior. Of course, I don't understand why a student was punished for refusing to step on the paper, which seems to be the point of the exercise. If everyone had gladly jumped on it than it would have shown that symbols, or at least that symbol, have no power.

Well, to me they are words. Hence why I would not have any issues. They are not sacred to me. If I was a participant in this activity I'd have passed with flying colors. Now, if I was an observant of a religious event or something I'd be more respectful, but with this assignment, Im getting an A.